You better have some rough ridin' answers, Currie.

[wabash909]

Who was the implicator?

Maybe I missed that part.

[captaincrap]

Why couldn't Currie have just Ohio Stated this thing and worked out a deal where Jamar gets suspended from future games that he has zero chance of playing in while staying free to play in all the post season play this year?

He's a senior, no upcoming games to suspend him for.

so what's the consequence if you just play him? Did the NCAA make that call, or Currie?

The same thing happened to Miami FL with Durand Scott -- when a player receives improper benefits, he is immediately ineligible and has to be withheld from play until the NCAA reinstatement committee rules on what needs to happen for him to return. The reinstatement committee is who K-State was working with on game day and even during play. If you play an ineligible player you will end up vacating the win, forfeit any revenue from the game, and risk probation. If the NCAA finds out you knew about the player being ineligible and played him anyway, that's how you end up with jobs lost, postseason bans and scholarship reductions.

I can recall no situation where this has EVER happened with an issue as small as the case at hand.  Do you know of one? 

OR, is it as we suspect, where other institutions are more "resourceful" in how they characterize accusations...e.g. "I don't believe we have a violation, so we will play the kid" then, after some additional review, maybe submit the accusation later, "just in case."

I am guessing we are one the most conservative side of the spectrum on this....like the very end of the right-hand side of the spectrum.

Ohio State... USC... UCF... all had knowledge (or should have had knowledge) of improper benefits and played an ineligible player.

NCAA doesn't care about the money involved, they care about schools reporting stuff. It's the only way the NCAA can enforce their rules -- they can't hire a rules police for every school, so they have to rely on the schools policing themselves. So when a school fails at that, the NCAA will always penalize them pretty good.

Most self-reported violations have relatively light penalties, because NCAA wants to keep encouraging the school to self-report. It's the carrot on the stick -- keep self-reporting, we'll be easier on you. Sweep it under the rug, we'll F you over when we find out.

["storm"nut]

I would just remind everybody again that this happens a lot. It happened last year with Perry Jones at Baylor, he was suspended the day before the Big12 Tourney for improper benefits and had to miss several games (which carried over to this year). Difference is with Jamar it happened to be his senior season and we lost, so he's done. But exactly the same situation as Perry jones, Durand Scott, Cam Newton, Josh Selby, etc etc etc. Kids get caught taking money or trips or clothes or rides from "friends" all the time, and the NCAA doesn't always agree that they are "friends". So kids get ruled ineligible, the school apples for reinstatement, it gets ruled on, punishment is given if any.

To make the ruling about Currie in any way is missing the point. If you want to complain about how JC handled the publicity or media afterwards, that's probably fair.

How many games did Cam miss? It goes back to the double standard things. If I remember correctly. The NCAA ruled Cam ineligible and in less than 24 hours He was ruled okay to play and practice after Auburn appealed. Seems they worked at a different speed for the Newton situation.

It took them a day or so for Cam. K-State had like 12 hours.

Hope we can get a new "K-State rule" out of this.

"If a member institution appeals a ruling by the NCAA on a student athlete any suspensions will be removed until a proper investigation can take place. The games during which time an appeal is open shall not count against said institution unless the appeal is seen with out any merit"

[Cartierfor3]

Why couldn't Currie have just Ohio Stated this thing and worked out a deal where Jamar gets suspended from future games that he has zero chance of playing in while staying free to play in all the post season play this year?

He's a senior, no upcoming games to suspend him for.

so what's the consequence if you just play him? Did the NCAA make that call, or Currie?

The same thing happened to Miami FL with Durand Scott -- when a player receives improper benefits, he is immediately ineligible and has to be withheld from play until the NCAA reinstatement committee rules on what needs to happen for him to return. The reinstatement committee is who K-State was working with on game day and even during play. If you play an ineligible player you will end up vacating the win, forfeit any revenue from the game, and risk probation. If the NCAA finds out you knew about the player being ineligible and played him anyway, that's how you end up with jobs lost, postseason bans and scholarship reductions.

I can recall no situation where this has EVER happened with an issue as small as the case at hand.  Do you know of one? 

OR, is it as we suspect, where other institutions are more "resourceful" in how they characterize accusations...e.g. "I don't believe we have a violation, so we will play the kid" then, after some additional review, maybe submit the accusation later, "just in case."

I am guessing we are one the most conservative side of the spectrum on this....like the very end of the right-hand side of the spectrum.

Ohio State... USC... UCF... all had knowledge (or should have had knowledge) of improper benefits and played an ineligible player.

NCAA doesn't care about the money involved, they care about schools reporting stuff. It's the only way the NCAA can enforce their rules -- they can't hire a rules police for every school, so they have to rely on the schools policing themselves. So when a school fails at that, the NCAA will always penalize them pretty good.

Most self-reported violations have relatively light penalties, because NCAA wants to keep encouraging the school to self-report. It's the carrot on the stick -- keep self-reporting, we'll be easier on you. Sweep it under the rug, we'll F you over when we find out.

What would be the diff between reporting Friday night or Sunday night?

[Dugout DickStone]

Why couldn't Currie have just Ohio Stated this thing and worked out a deal where Jamar gets suspended from future games that he has zero chance of playing in while staying free to play in all the post season play this year?

He's a senior, no upcoming games to suspend him for.

so what's the consequence if you just play him? Did the NCAA make that call, or Currie?

The same thing happened to Miami FL with Durand Scott -- when a player receives improper benefits, he is immediately ineligible and has to be withheld from play until the NCAA reinstatement committee rules on what needs to happen for him to return. The reinstatement committee is who K-State was working with on game day and even during play. If you play an ineligible player you will end up vacating the win, forfeit any revenue from the game, and risk probation. If the NCAA finds out you knew about the player being ineligible and played him anyway, that's how you end up with jobs lost, postseason bans and scholarship reductions.

I can recall no situation where this has EVER happened with an issue as small as the case at hand.  Do you know of one? 

OR, is it as we suspect, where other institutions are more "resourceful" in how they characterize accusations...e.g. "I don't believe we have a violation, so we will play the kid" then, after some additional review, maybe submit the accusation later, "just in case."

I am guessing we are one the most conservative side of the spectrum on this....like the very end of the right-hand side of the spectrum.

Ohio State... USC... UCF... all had knowledge (or should have had knowledge) of improper benefits and played an ineligible player.

NCAA doesn't care about the money involved, they care about schools reporting stuff. It's the only way the NCAA can enforce their rules -- they can't hire a rules police for every school, so they have to rely on the schools policing themselves. So when a school fails at that, the NCAA will always penalize them pretty good.

Most self-reported violations have relatively light penalties, because NCAA wants to keep encouraging the school to self-report. It's the carrot on the stick -- keep self-reporting, we'll be easier on you. Sweep it under the rug, we'll F you over when we find out.

Yet they never F anyone over.  EVER.

[Trim]

It took them a day or so for Cam. K-State had like 12 hours.

You know how much we appreciate you coming here cc, but is there any prospect of Currie laying out the exact chronology anytime soon?  You're the best, but surely the transparency pledge can't consist of "captain crap" fielding selected questions, even if they are coming from THE message board for EMAW elites.

[CNS]

If the NCAA truly doesn't care about $, but only about reporting, our special friends of the program need to really take this to both heart and wallet and start getting some crap done.

[captaincrap]

Why couldn't Currie have just Ohio Stated this thing and worked out a deal where Jamar gets suspended from future games that he has zero chance of playing in while staying free to play in all the post season play this year?

He's a senior, no upcoming games to suspend him for.

so what's the consequence if you just play him? Did the NCAA make that call, or Currie?

The same thing happened to Miami FL with Durand Scott -- when a player receives improper benefits, he is immediately ineligible and has to be withheld from play until the NCAA reinstatement committee rules on what needs to happen for him to return. The reinstatement committee is who K-State was working with on game day and even during play. If you play an ineligible player you will end up vacating the win, forfeit any revenue from the game, and risk probation. If the NCAA finds out you knew about the player being ineligible and played him anyway, that's how you end up with jobs lost, postseason bans and scholarship reductions.

I can recall no situation where this has EVER happened with an issue as small as the case at hand.  Do you know of one? 

OR, is it as we suspect, where other institutions are more "resourceful" in how they characterize accusations...e.g. "I don't believe we have a violation, so we will play the kid" then, after some additional review, maybe submit the accusation later, "just in case."

I am guessing we are one the most conservative side of the spectrum on this....like the very end of the right-hand side of the spectrum.

Ohio State... USC... UCF... all had knowledge (or should have had knowledge) of improper benefits and played an ineligible player.

NCAA doesn't care about the money involved, they care about schools reporting stuff. It's the only way the NCAA can enforce their rules -- they can't hire a rules police for every school, so they have to rely on the schools policing themselves. So when a school fails at that, the NCAA will always penalize them pretty good.

Most self-reported violations have relatively light penalties, because NCAA wants to keep encouraging the school to self-report. It's the carrot on the stick -- keep self-reporting, we'll be easier on you. Sweep it under the rug, we'll F you over when we find out.

What would be the diff between reporting Friday night or Sunday night?

Ok, so in your scenario let's say K-State waits to report Sunday, even though we knew Friday. We play Jamar. We self report Sunday. NCAA asks, "when did you know?". We now have two options. Admit we knew Friday, but played him anyway, which is bad -- we knowingly played an ineligible player. Option 2, lie to NCAA and say "omg, we just found out today!!1!". NCAA does its due diligence, investigates the report. Sure enough, they find records and witnesses that show we knew Friday. Now it's really bad, because not only did K-State knowingly play an ineligible player, but then they lied about it.

["storm"nut]

Why couldn't Currie have just Ohio Stated this thing and worked out a deal where Jamar gets suspended from future games that he has zero chance of playing in while staying free to play in all the post season play this year?

He's a senior, no upcoming games to suspend him for.

so what's the consequence if you just play him? Did the NCAA make that call, or Currie?

The same thing happened to Miami FL with Durand Scott -- when a player receives improper benefits, he is immediately ineligible and has to be withheld from play until the NCAA reinstatement committee rules on what needs to happen for him to return. The reinstatement committee is who K-State was working with on game day and even during play. If you play an ineligible player you will end up vacating the win, forfeit any revenue from the game, and risk probation. If the NCAA finds out you knew about the player being ineligible and played him anyway, that's how you end up with jobs lost, postseason bans and scholarship reductions.

I can recall no situation where this has EVER happened with an issue as small as the case at hand.  Do you know of one? 

OR, is it as we suspect, where other institutions are more "resourceful" in how they characterize accusations...e.g. "I don't believe we have a violation, so we will play the kid" then, after some additional review, maybe submit the accusation later, "just in case."

I am guessing we are one the most conservative side of the spectrum on this....like the very end of the right-hand side of the spectrum.

Ohio State... USC... UCF... all had knowledge (or should have had knowledge) of improper benefits and played an ineligible player.

NCAA doesn't care about the money involved, they care about schools reporting stuff. It's the only way the NCAA can enforce their rules -- they can't hire a rules police for every school, so they have to rely on the schools policing themselves. So when a school fails at that, the NCAA will always penalize them pretty good.

Most self-reported violations have relatively light penalties, because NCAA wants to keep encouraging the school to self-report. It's the carrot on the stick -- keep self-reporting, we'll be easier on you. Sweep it under the rug, we'll F you over when we find out.

What would be the diff between reporting Friday night or Sunday night?

Compliance office no doubt keeps a call/communication log. It would have been very easy for the NCAA to find out when we found out about this possible issue and our reporting of it after an internal probe.

Also there is a good bet we thought he would be cleared. (may have been a f'up on compliance part)

If they found that we let him play while know this stuff we could kiss any win/money we made from the tourney (could still if the report came in before the southern miss game)

[captaincrap]

If the NCAA truly doesn't care about $, but only about reporting, our special friends of the program need to really take this to both heart and wallet and start getting some crap done.

That's not what I meant... clearly there's a difference between a kid getting $200 and $200,000. The penalties would reflect that. But in either case, if a school knowingly hid it from the NCAA or lied about it, the NCAA would still come down harshly even if it was just $200 -- because the school covered it up. That's where the amount doesn't matter as much. NCAA doesn't want schools covering anything up, no matter how trivial the school think it is.

[Pete]

Why couldn't Currie have just Ohio Stated this thing and worked out a deal where Jamar gets suspended from future games that he has zero chance of playing in while staying free to play in all the post season play this year?

He's a senior, no upcoming games to suspend him for.

so what's the consequence if you just play him? Did the NCAA make that call, or Currie?

The same thing happened to Miami FL with Durand Scott -- when a player receives improper benefits, he is immediately ineligible and has to be withheld from play until the NCAA reinstatement committee rules on what needs to happen for him to return. The reinstatement committee is who K-State was working with on game day and even during play. If you play an ineligible player you will end up vacating the win, forfeit any revenue from the game, and risk probation. If the NCAA finds out you knew about the player being ineligible and played him anyway, that's how you end up with jobs lost, postseason bans and scholarship reductions.

I can recall no situation where this has EVER happened with an issue as small as the case at hand.  Do you know of one? 

OR, is it as we suspect, where other institutions are more "resourceful" in how they characterize accusations...e.g. "I don't believe we have a violation, so we will play the kid" then, after some additional review, maybe submit the accusation later, "just in case."

I am guessing we are one the most conservative side of the spectrum on this....like the very end of the right-hand side of the spectrum.

Ohio State... USC... UCF... all had knowledge (or should have had knowledge) of improper benefits and played an ineligible player.

NCAA doesn't care about the money involved, they care about schools reporting stuff. It's the only way the NCAA can enforce their rules -- they can't hire a rules police for every school, so they have to rely on the schools policing themselves. So when a school fails at that, the NCAA will always penalize them pretty good.

Most self-reported violations have relatively light penalties, because NCAA wants to keep encouraging the school to self-report. It's the carrot on the stick -- keep self-reporting, we'll be easier on you. Sweep it under the rug, we'll F you over when we find out.

What would be the diff between reporting Friday night or Sunday night?

Ok, so in your scenario let's say K-State waits to report Sunday, even though we knew Friday. We play Jamar. We self report Sunday. NCAA asks, "when did you know?". We now have two options. Admit we knew Friday, but played him anyway, which is bad -- we knowingly played an ineligible player. Option 2, lie to NCAA and say "omg, we just found out today!!1!". NCAA does its due diligence, investigates the report. Sure enough, they find records and witnesses that show we knew Friday. Now it's really bad, because not only did K-State knowingly play an ineligible player, but then they lied about it.

I look forward to seeing these.

[CNS]

CC, in another thread, Limestone quotes Kietz saying "2.  KS doesn't have a "compliance" department, it has an "enforcement" department and is much different from other NCAA schools."

two Q's:

1. has this been something we have looked into restructuring to?

2. if not, why not?

This should be made our #1 priority, even above the practice facility.

[captaincrap]

CC, in another thread, Limestone quotes Kietz saying "2.  KS doesn't have a "compliance" department, it has an "enforcement" department and is much different from other NCAA schools."

two Q's:

1. has this been something we have looked into restructuring to?

2. if not, why not?

This should be made our #1 priority, even above the practice facility.

Not surprisingly, KK is very wrong on this. K-State compliance office is no different than the vast majority of schools.

[Dugout DickStone]

Why couldn't Currie have just Ohio Stated this thing and worked out a deal where Jamar gets suspended from future games that he has zero chance of playing in while staying free to play in all the post season play this year?

He's a senior, no upcoming games to suspend him for.

so what's the consequence if you just play him? Did the NCAA make that call, or Currie?

The same thing happened to Miami FL with Durand Scott -- when a player receives improper benefits, he is immediately ineligible and has to be withheld from play until the NCAA reinstatement committee rules on what needs to happen for him to return. The reinstatement committee is who K-State was working with on game day and even during play. If you play an ineligible player you will end up vacating the win, forfeit any revenue from the game, and risk probation. If the NCAA finds out you knew about the player being ineligible and played him anyway, that's how you end up with jobs lost, postseason bans and scholarship reductions.

I can recall no situation where this has EVER happened with an issue as small as the case at hand.  Do you know of one? 

OR, is it as we suspect, where other institutions are more "resourceful" in how they characterize accusations...e.g. "I don't believe we have a violation, so we will play the kid" then, after some additional review, maybe submit the accusation later, "just in case."

I am guessing we are one the most conservative side of the spectrum on this....like the very end of the right-hand side of the spectrum.

Ohio State... USC... UCF... all had knowledge (or should have had knowledge) of improper benefits and played an ineligible player.

NCAA doesn't care about the money involved, they care about schools reporting stuff. It's the only way the NCAA can enforce their rules -- they can't hire a rules police for every school, so they have to rely on the schools policing themselves. So when a school fails at that, the NCAA will always penalize them pretty good.

Most self-reported violations have relatively light penalties, because NCAA wants to keep encouraging the school to self-report. It's the carrot on the stick -- keep self-reporting, we'll be easier on you. Sweep it under the rug, we'll F you over when we find out.

What would be the diff between reporting Friday night or Sunday night?

Ok, so in your scenario let's say K-State waits to report Sunday, even though we knew Friday. We play Jamar. We self report Sunday. NCAA asks, "when did you know?". We now have two options. Admit we knew Friday, but played him anyway, which is bad -- we knowingly played an ineligible player. Option 2, lie to NCAA and say "omg, we just found out today!!1!". NCAA does its due diligence, investigates the report. Sure enough, they find records and witnesses that show we knew Friday. Now it's really bad, because not only did K-State knowingly play an ineligible player, but then they lied about it.

If Currie and our lawyers are too stupid to finesse the timeline (as they are actually doing right now as I type this  but behind closed doors) then tell them we can help.  When you first have a hint of impropriety you don't have to make a snap judgment.  Couldn't Currie decide he is too far from Manhattan, too far from the witnesses, too far from the facts, examine all issues instead of making a snap decision?  The suggestion of a violation isn't proof of one. 

[SkinnyBenny]

CC, who tipped K-State off?  Townie tuck who happened to be walking by Jamar at the customer service counter, or Western Union employee behind the counter? Is anything going to be done to this tipster for a blatant breach of confidentiality/possible violations of interstate commerce laws?

[bigDcat]

Is it really that hard for the compliance office to draw out figuring out the Jamar situation? It seemed like they could have easily held back their findings by making sure they had more "thoroughly" investigated the situation themselves.

EDIT: what limestone said

[SkinnyBenny]

CC, what about Curtis Malone? Will we take out a restraining order against him? At the very least do we have dartboards in the athletic offices with his face on them or something?

[sonofdaxjones]

I also have a way of handling this.

Don't say a word, play Jamar, and tell Capt. Narc that if he says anything he won't wake up in the morning.

Pretty simple

[captaincrap]

Couldn't Currie decide he is too far from Manhattan, too far from the witnesses, too far from the facts, examine all issues instead of making a snap decision?

Short answer: no, he can't. Like I've said before, the NCAA rules don't work that way when it comes to eligibility and improper benefits. When the Cam Newton stuff first came out, Auburn immediately ruled him ineligible due to the possibility of him having taken improper benefits. Then they investigated, found nothing, applied for reinstatement, were granted it. I'm telling you, it happens all the time, everywhere. K-State is not special or unique in this regard.

[sonofdaxjones]

Oh yeah Cam Newton, it all came out and the NCAA pretty much said there was not only smoke, but the house had been burned to the ground . . . but there was nothing they could do.

[captaincrap]

Couldn't Currie decide he is too far from Manhattan, too far from the witnesses, too far from the facts, examine all issues instead of making a snap decision?

Short answer: no, he can't. Like I've said before, the NCAA rules don't work that way when it comes to eligibility and improper benefits. When the Cam Newton stuff first came out, Auburn immediately ruled him ineligible due to the possibility of him having taken improper benefits. Then they investigated, found nothing, applied for reinstatement, were granted it. I'm telling you, it happens all the time, everywhere. K-State is not special or unique in this regard.

And you guys keep saying KU does it better... Josh Selby had the same thing happen to him, only at the start of his career. He was ruled ineligible, KU investigated the improper benefits claim, applied for reinstatement, NCAA ruled it a violation and required a suspension and repayment of benefits. Bill Self kept complaining about how long it was taking. Exactly the same. Jamar's is just magnified because of the timing.

[captaincrap]

Oh yeah Cam Newton, it all came out and the NCAA pretty much said there was not only smoke, but the house had been burned to the ground . . . but there was nothing they could do.

True... wasn't referring to the violation itself but rather the process they went through. K-State did the same.

[CNS]

CC, who tipped K-State off?  Townie tuck who happened to be walking by Jamar at the customer service counter, or Western Union employee behind the counter? Is anything going to be done to this tipster for a blatant breach of confidentiality/possible violations of interstate commerce laws?

Given what happened, it basically has to be:
1. the western union/grocery store employee that actually handled the transaction
2. Malone himself
3. some other rando that Jamar discussed the transaction with

[kitten_mittons]

Couldn't Currie decide he is too far from Manhattan, too far from the witnesses, too far from the facts, examine all issues instead of making a snap decision?

Short answer: no, he can't. Like I've said before, the NCAA rules don't work that way when it comes to eligibility and improper benefits. When the Cam Newton stuff first came out, Auburn immediately ruled him ineligible due to the possibility of him having taken improper benefits. Then they investigated, found nothing, applied for reinstatement, were granted it. I'm telling you, it happens all the time, everywhere. K-State is not special or unique in this regard.

So you are saying that any person could report any violation, and that person will be ruled intelligible until they can confirm the reports are true/false?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk

[_33]

Ok, so in your scenario let's say K-State waits to report Sunday, even though we knew Friday. We play Jamar. We self report Sunday. NCAA asks, "when did you know?". We now have two options. Admit we knew Friday, but played him anyway, which is bad -- we knowingly played an ineligible player. Option 2, lie to NCAA and say "omg, we just found out today!!1!". NCAA does its due diligence, investigates the report. Sure enough, they find records and witnesses that show we knew Friday. Now it's really bad, because not only did K-State knowingly play an ineligible player, but then they lied about it.

Who cares? I mean seriously who cares about any of this? All of that "due diligence" would occur after the NCAA tournament. We'd get a slap on the wrist and be off to the paint store to buy another Sweet 16 banner.